Failed Play against Dan at the H Club

[shipitfish]

My illness broke my posting routine, and I apologize to my readers who had gotten used to very regular posts. I'll strive to get regular posting going again.

I was sick from last Wednesday, missed two days of work at the end of last week, and didn't start feeling better until Saturday morning. But, by Saturday evening, I was ready to play poker again.

Dan and I went to the H Club in NYC. Dan is a relatively new player who came to me about one year ago asking for advice to learn NL HE. His game has improved a lot over the past year, and he is now a reasonable tight-aggressive player. However, I know quite a bit about his game, which was a factor in the hand I'm about to describe.

I bought in for the $500 maximum in the $1/$2 NL HE game. I saw a ton of flops with reasonable multiway hands — I was dealt about a dozen pocket pairs which I took to multiway flops and failed to flop any sets. I took a number of flops with suited connecting cards and other surprise hands, but failed to connect there as well. I rebought for another hundred and but was still struggling to keep my stack at $400.

Dan, meanwhile, was playing very well. He was raising frequently preflop, and was making good choices about raise sizes. It took a $20 (!) preflop raise to get just one caller. Dan was carefully doing that with his big unconnected cards and big pairs. He was using position very well to win pots uncontested, and was properly value-betting his holdings to protect strong but vulnerable holdings. I felt he was really playing well.

It was in this context that the following hand came up. From middle position, Dan raised to $20 after one limper ahead of him. From watching his play and knowing his game, I knew that he had two big unconnected cards (AK, AQ or maybe AJ or KQ), or he had a big pair (JJ or better, maybe TT). I was on the button and it was folded between us.

At this point, I simply decided to call regardless of my holding. The limper looked annoyed enough at the raise, and even if I generated 1-to-2 for him, he'd fold. The blinds were distracted and probably folding. I'd be able to take a flop heads up with position, and really felt I might be able to outplay Dan on the right flop. I was correct about the first part, at least — we saw the flop heads-up with $45 in the pot. (BTW, even though it doesn't matter at all for the telling of the hand, I held K 6. I had no hand/no draw and on ever street Dan was winning by far.)

The flop was A 8 3. Dan relatively quickly bet $40. I considered my options of what hand I could represent. I felt very strongly that Dan had an Ace by his mannerism of betting and by the amount. I felt if he was to bet the flop with something else, he'd bet less with non-Ace hands (say, K K). The question was whether or not he had a big spade to go with the his "red ace". I couldn't know for sure if he was drawing well, so I felt I had to represent a made flush.

The question was: how would Dan think I would play such a hand? Well, I figured it was good I was taking some time to act. I figured if I called automatically, Dan would be inclined to think "draw", not only because quick calls often indicate draws, but also because he knows I've told him that. In other words, he might easily think I'd try to "throw him off" by doing the obvious "weak play" with a draw. I waited a few more seconds, and decided that an immediate raise would be the exact play to look like a pure bluff to him, so I called. The pot was $125 into the turn.

The turn was a blank, a 4 or something like that. Dan thought only briefly and bet $40 again. I read this clearly as Dan backing off. If he really had read me for a spade draw, he'd have bet the pot size again. I really felt strongly at this point that he had AQ or AK and no spade. I decided now was the time to carry through and represent a relatively strong (but not the nut) flush. I raised just $60 more, hoping he would see it as a value raise from a flush against someone I thought had no flush draw. I really expected Dan to reluctantly fold.

He began saying to the dealer, strangely and out of character, just $60 more. $60 more; that's it?. He quickly called. At this moment, I had to reconsider my read. The $60 more? thing was obviously representing a big spade, and at this point I had to really consider it. AQo with Q was a serious possibility. I pondered and watched Dan as the river fell. I knew if he checked the river, I'd have to bet at least $100 of my depleted chips and hoped he didn't call with his Ace.

Dan saw the river card, glanced back at his stack and said one hundred. I took a peak at the 7 and refocused on Dan as he pulled out a stack of chips. I began to put Dan on that Q, as the dealer confirmed the count of his bet. After all, why would he bet one third of the pot on the river?

Then came "the glance". Dan's eyes met mine for much less than a second, but I read something there. He had no spade. There was almost no doubt in my mind. He had decided to represent that flush if the spade fell; that's what the out-of-character just $60 more? stuff meant. He was overselling the bluff.

However, I thought I saw something else. I got this distinct feeling that he had read me as well. I looked down at my stack; I had a mere $215 left, which meant a raise would be basically a min-raise. I felt that Dan was telling me something like: I don't think you have a single spade at all and I'm going to call you with this ace. I felt very confident he didn't have spade; not totally sure, but well over 70%. But, when I added to that the likelihood that he'd call anyway with an Ace because he suspected a bluff, I decided that I'd have to fold. For show, I said: Well, Dan, I have a small flush but I had you on the K. I can't call.

Later, Dan and I talked in detail about the hand. Dan had decided to represent the flush draw on the turn, but obviously had failed to execute perfectly because of the look on the river. He confirmed that what was really going on is he hadn't realized that $100 was such a large bet (relatively to my stack) on the river, but that he wouldn't have called a river raise. He actually had me on a weak flush draw, not a made flush, so the 7 was, in some sense, as scary for him as it was for me, but thought I could make a good laydown of, say, the naked T.

It's not often I try to set up a pure bluff and play someone else's hand. I usually try to do it against players whom I play a lot with and with who I have a long history of talking about poker strategy. I used to feel somewhat safe doing this, but I wonder if this was simply a mistake. Should I be trying to set up plays like this? Am I picking the wrong players; should I instead chose tight-weak players whose game I know well? I figure I eventually have to learn how to make these complicated plays, and who better to try than those whose game I know well and whom I know are working hard to play correctly?

Anyway, I have to say that I think Dan played the hand very well. He suspected that something might be going on. I think my biggest mistake was not raising just a bit more on the turn. Dan confirmed that he would have folded to a raise of even $80 more instead of $60 more. Also, I should have given more consideration to going all-in on the river. I would have bet $215 to win $425, which is almost 2-to-1. I only have to be right one out of three times to make that high variance play profitable.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, your turn raise seems super small. What was your stack then? Would this guy put your raise in that context? Anyways, I don't necessarily think this is the board to make a move on. There's an ace, and the spades make it look like a bluffing board. I don't know. I'm a limit player and I never, ever play a hand planning to bluff-win. I do it when I miss and can't win otherwise. But I guess making calls planning to take it away is NL poker 101 type stuff. I'm just not so sure I'd try is against someone who is playing so well. Call the guy who keeps missing. Even if he's a better player than Dan, confidence is a huge factor here.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

My stack would have been around $314 on the turn. Yes, I believe the raise should have been more. I was trying to sell this idea of "I know you have an ace and no flush draw, Dan, so I'm going to raise just a little to tempt you to call." It's precisely because I thought Dan was playing well that he could make this laydown. As new player, he often leans a bit to tight-weak when playing well.

The existence of delayed steals are of course NL HE 101, but executing them properly is at least a 200-level course. I've just been experimenting recently against players I know well, but maybe this one shouldn't have left the lab. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I agree with you about confidence. If I had been a bit more confident and willing to risk my whole stack on this bluff, I could have came out really nicely for it, as Dan confirmed he was ready to fold. I just got scared that it wasn't a certainty and the fear of misplaying away an entire buy-in like that frightened me into folding. I presume the only way to get better at this is make more plays and be willing to risk some of my bankroll on the learning process.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess there are a ton of other variables here, most of which would be bet sizes and whatnot. He needs to think you're milking him, but you obviously set too good a price, or, as I think, chose too weird an amount. I personally keep my bet sizes fairly consistent. He bets $40. I make it $120. That's it. Yes, easier said than done and of course hindsight, but $100 straight is a weird bet. A min raise might even be better.

How would you play a baby flush in this spot? So you flopped a flush, would you raise the flop? Wait for a safe turn? I think an important and effective part of bluffing is telling yourself you have the hand you're representing, then betting accordingly. Not just playing the man, but playing the cards you don't have, if you will.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Given that I didn't think Dan had a flush draw himself, I would have played a baby flush just like that, which is why I thought it was right. Dan knows I vary my bet sizes, even in the same situation on the same night. Dan knows a good deal about my play too, and I was trying to use that as an advantage. I think to be successful, I needed a little more push (i.e., slightly bigger raise) on the turn to make it abundantly clear I was "protecting a small flopped flush".

This idea that I could get him to realize that I knew he had an Ace with no flush draw and therefore that I was really "milking that flopped flush" in the face of his drawing dead (i.e., trying to get a call from a naked Ace) was a too far fetched and complicated bluff. I think I should have known Dan isn't that complicated of a player yet — he's not on the level of "he thinks that I think that he thinks I have no flush draw", and I was playing (inappropriately) three levels down when I should have stopped at two. I would have won the pot with this less subtle turn representation: "I have a made flush and I don't know whether or not you have an Ace with a big spade or not so I should protect it". It's probably fancy play syndrome; just a level deeper than the usual fancy play associated with that term. Thoughts?

[dankhank.livejournal.com]

bradley this is really bad. i don't know when moves like this seeped into your game, but something is wrong for it to even be present. i know that i have eliminated the pure bluff from my game almost entirely, but if i do have occasion to pull one, it is late in the hand when the idea even occurs to me, since a confluence of factors needs to add up to even be _considering_ it. you set this pure bluff up pre-flop. why? is the game you're in so tough that people won't pay your edge off in much simpler ways? if so just find a better game.

you've always had a strange tendency to try moves on people who you know well and who play reasonably. do you not realize these are the people most likely to expect you to make a move on them? rock paper scissors man. you can't just know all the moves, you have to know when to use what move to counter the other guys' move.

let me just quote you from your post: "Dan relatively quickly bet $40. I considered my options of what hand I could represent. I felt very strongly that Dan had an Ace by his mannerism of betting and by the amount." okay what is the reasonable action for you at this point in the hand, given your stated analysis? you are correct to say this hand was a mistake after the fact, but it is surprising to see you even try it in the first place.

[dankhank.livejournal.com]

oh and i also wanted to mention i was glad to come to your journal and see so many new posts.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to see you back here reading and commenting! As you can see from the recent posting regularity, barring illnesses, I'm very committed to maintaining the journal on a much more regular basis.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your frank analysis. You are right that my most likely attempt to outplay people are against those I know really well. I guess I have a higher level of confidence, since I know so much about their play, but you are quite right to point out these are the people who are most likely to figure out what I'm doing.

I am somewhat amazed to hear that you have removed pure bluffs from your game entirely. I stopped long ago in limit, but in NL it seems to me I have to develop this talent of "playing the player" and being able to make these kinds of moves against a player when they have heavily defined their hand early on (as Dan did with his $20 preflop raise).

But, you've been playing poker more seriously and better than I have over the past year or two. Do you really think that the pure bluff against strong players isn't sometimes necessary to maintain positive EV? Or is it just a game selection question: avoid games that have mostly strong players?

As to whether these have seeped into my game regularly, the answer is "far from it". I don't try this sort of thing very often (I can think of only one other time in the last six months), but I should probably reconsider entirely who I am trying it against.

As to your point of "late in the hand", I agree with you. I guess I rarely see such spots, because of the necessity for every action to add up. I find I'm rarely in situations where my actions on the first few streets allow me to reasonably represent a hand that would now be the required one to convince the other player to fold, say, top pair, good kicker. I am curious: how does this end up working out for you? How can you suddenly change your play late in the hand and still convince the other player that you had the "draw", "overcard" or whatever it is you are representing.

the possible call with no spade

[(Anonymous)]

While I did think something similar to dank, I primarily took issue with:

I'm don't think you have a single spade at all and I'm going to call you with this ace. I felt very confident he didn't have spade; not totally sure, but well over 70%. But, when I added to that the likelihood that he'd call anyway with an Ace because he suspected a bluff, I decided that I'd have to fold.

It's dangerous to factor in "what if the other player makes an incredible play and somehow calls me here with very little." If that really was the main problem that you saw, then you should have fired a big shell.

It's different if you're up against a total donk who calls anything. But if that were the case then I assume you wouldn't have tried this play anyway. I'm assuming you tried it because you thought that Dan would be able to make such a laydown if the cards presented an opportunity.

But then it seems that the cards did present the *perfect* opportunity, but you passed it up anyway?

Re: the possible call with no spade

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Yes, I tried this play against Dan because I thought he'd lay down one pair, nut kicker and even two pair on a scary board. However, I think what dankhank (who has, BTW, logged many hours in live play against me) points out here is key. I try these plays too often against good players who play with me a lot. Dan knows that I may be making a move on him, and therefore actually considers making plays and calls against me when, against a typical "tight-aggressive" opponent, he would just fold.

Basically, by selecting my targets for big bluffs among the set of "strong players that I play with often", I've set myself up to fail, because those are precisely the people who are in my head enough to make some sick calls and plays.

As it turned out, I misread Dan. Dan bet $100 on the river effectively out of sheer terror, and regretted the bet after making it. That's what the "look" was about. The look was actually saying: "I'm dead, you know it and I know it". I read something else into and I shouldn't have had to do so. The misread ("What if Dan's planning on making a sick call here") is because I knew that Dan might be able to put me on a pure bluff, whereas he'd never do that with a player of my caliber who wasn't the guy that taught him how to play.

After this discussion (which has been extremely useful to me, BTW — thanks to both of you), I am starting to feel that my best "pure bluffing" opportunities are against people I know are strong players whom I don't know all that well and play with only occasionally. Of course, there's also the option of eradicating pure bluffs from my game altogether, which I'm going to do for a while anyway. But, when I bring them back, it has to be in a much more cagey way than I've been trying it. I'm clearly forcing myself into complex situations by trying them against players I know well (and who know me well). It's never positive EV in poker to force yourself into a complex situation that you have to play your wait out of.

Re: the possible call with no spade

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's important to note a likely reason that you occassionally go for these bluffs against players you know -- those situations are a big part of what makes poker fun. They produce the deep iterations of "he thinks i thinks" that can make a single hand so complex and exciting.